Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Gomez

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION


December 20, 2006

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
JOSE M. GOMEZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Middlesex County, Municipal Appeal No. 100-2005.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted December 6, 2006

Before Judges Stern and Lyons.

The defendant appeals his conviction for violating N.J.S.A. 39:4-50, Driving While Intoxicated. The defendant argues that the field sobriety testing and overall observations of him did not demonstrate that he was guilty of driving while intoxicated beyond a reasonable doubt.

The matter was originally tried in the East Brunswick Township Municipal Court. That court found the defendant not guilty of violating the breathalyzer aspect of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50 but found him guilty of violating the statute based on field sobriety testing and overall observations. On January 20, 2006, the Honorable James F. Mulvihill, J.S.C. heard the matter on appeal de novo. The defendant, through counsel, argued that there were doubts and explanations for each of the observations made by the officers. However, based on the totality of the circumstances, the officers' determinations were found credible and supportable by Judge Mulvihill. Judge Mulvihill's opinion on the record is detailed and well supported by sufficient evidence. After having carefully considered the defendant's arguments in light of the record and applicable law, particularly State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146 (1964) and State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463 (1999), we affirm the order of February 1, 2006 substantially for the reasons set forth by Judge Mulvihill in his oral ruling on January 20, 2006. We find defendant's arguments to be without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in this opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).

Affirmed.

20061220

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.